andyofborg Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 If there was only one tax rate why wouldn't it be easier/cheaper....whether ot not it hammers anyone depends on the rate set....those that earn more will pay more.... to maintain the same level of income from income tax then if you abolish the higher rate bands you would have to increase the base rate from it's current 20%. also, a number of us have passed comment on the growing gap between rich and poor and that for a healthy society this gap needs narrowing. one way of doing this is via the tax system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 If there was only one tax rate why wouldn't it be easier/cheaper....whether ot not it hammers anyone depends on the rate set....those that earn more will pay more.... completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 to maintain the same level of income from income tax then if you abolish the higher rate bands you would have to increase the base rate from it's current 20%. That's assuming the tax take doesn't increase due to the rate being lower...ie less people using avoiding tactics...maybe more non doms would become "doms" ( ) if the rate was attractive enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I'm not jealous of anything. I have a good income and I pay the tax due on it. And I have ample money to live on. And I'm not blinded by being a contractor. I've been employed before, I'm now self employed, either way I paid the required amount of tax and only the required amount. And yes, they should have to pay more. They already pay more than you, but it's not enough. How do you justify this statement? All that proves is that they are getting richer, and that we have a transfer of income away from people (i.e. the rest of us) who are likely to meet their tax obligations without question to people who are more likely to try and avoid their tax obligations. I can't see how that is a positive thing in any way. No, it proves that they (the top 10% of earners in the country, which I expect includes some people on this forum), pay vastly more than you would expect in tax already. But some people (you included) still begrudge that they earn more than you and think they should pay even more in tax. And whilst you keep referring to multi millionaires and people who are paid hundreds of thousands a week, this conversation is about the other 99% of high earners who earn more than 150k/annum, but vastly less than the few examples you keep using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Incorrect. Have a look at how footballers manage image rights and how their contacts with their clubs are structured. Technically they are self employed as their services are contracted out through the companies they own. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have paid in far more than I have ever got out, so it owes me a huge amount. Who told you that you were supposed to get as much out as you put in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 The real question is how and why on earth did these loopholes ever get into the tax legislation in the first place. It must have been purely down to politicians sneaking them in to help their wealthy friends and patrons. They were intended as targeted tax relief to stimulate specific portions of industry. They outlive their usefulness, and later on a sharp accountant realises that they can be used to minimise the amount of tax you have to pay. Is that the fault of the government, the accountant or the person who hires the accountant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have paid far more in as I have to pay for the upkeep of the elderly and the sick, lame and lazy. I have to pay a fortune towards other peoples children. I don't owe them anything so why should I? Have you ever considered that you might one day be old or sick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 No, it proves that they (the top 10% of earners in the country, which I expect includes some people on this forum), pay vastly more than you would expect in tax already. But some people (you included) still begrudge that they earn more than you and think they should pay even more in tax. And whilst you keep referring to multi millionaires and people who are paid hundreds of thousands a week, this conversation is about the other 99% of high earners who earn more than 150k/annum, but vastly less than the few examples you keep using. The top 10% earners pay around 50% of the tax income of this country. The top 1% pays roughly 25% and the next 9% pays roughly 9%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Touchingly naive. I take it that means no you haven't? It's not naïve to disagree with your rather socialist outlook, if anything you've got a rather blinkered view of the subject. Maybe you should consider the people who aren't footballers and rock stars, see if your opinion changes. Like I said earlier there is a whole industry built around tax avoidance always trying to bend and stretch the rules to create new avoidance schemes. There are disclosure rules, i.e. that require any scheme that creates tax advantages to be disclosed to HMRC and a whole section at HMRC to manage disclosure and detect non-disclosure. The government could simply the entire tax regime if they wished, whilst ever they don't, tax avoidance is an entirely legitimate and sensible thing to practice. I'll say again that I assume that you don't voluntarily pay any extra tax? Why do you expect people who earn more to behave differently? In your simple IT contractor world there probably isn't a lot to consider and your tax affairs are unlikely to be vastly more complicated than the average joe. Now who's being naïve? You are simply not up there with the big boys so why try to defend people who are paying expert accountants tens of thousands of punds for their advice? It's nice to have had your expert opinion on my tax situation, and I certainly pay my accountant less than that. But the fact remains that most of the means of avoidance you've managed to think of are available to me and indeed you. The fact that pension contributions were one of the first examples makes it clear how laughable the subject really is, the only other examples you've come up with, companies (ie being self employed), trust funds (applicable to passing money on, not pay) and residence status (something with a well defined set of rules) are just silly, they're not schemes or loop holes, they're just how the system works. Oh, and all this was your attempt to justify keeping the 50% tax rate on those earning 150k+... The fact that these people according to you use these loop holes to avoid paying tax anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.